Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Loktofeit

I agree with the above poster that those are some really weak arguments, however I enjoyed the stance that it is crap that magic spells can do any real damage to a proper fortress gate. I agree. If magic spells had any affect on real defense walls in real life, banks would be robbed by wizards, not thugs.

That said, I think you might have enjoyed Shadowbane.

Any spell powerful enough to sunder a gate would hit so hard against flesh and bone they would be one-shot-kill spells leaving nothing but a greasy smudge. Spells are never programmed as being that powerful in any game - so cannot ergo, smash gates, never mind sections of wall!

Basic physics...

In the case of fire - a gate (if it had a significant wooden component) would have to be 'fired' for a significant period of time before it was weak enough to be breached.

Again - basic physics.

There are as far as I know - no fire spells in any game which apply a DoT for an hour or more...

Dude, you delivered in spades.

I knew the reply would be out there, but you exceeded my expectations, Caliburn.

I need to read up on the basic physics of magic spells, because they don't seem to match what I'm currently familiar with. As it stand, even the most basic fireball or lightning strike seems to me to be something that would either require the combined forces of Criss Angel and HAARP to reproduce or would be some klind of mystical occurence that falls outside of the laws of nature as I've been taught to date.

I mean, if a fire spell burns the enemy, why doesn't it burn the caster's hands? Or if I cast a firefield, how does it know which of the people that walk into it are bad guys and which aren't? And where did the energy come from that formed that fireball? Was it from me or from nature? What energy source is being depleted and how is it renewed? Is a fireball really made of fire, though? When I cast it at trees and shrubbery they don't burn. And if it isn't real fire, then why do we hold it to the natural behavior of fire in other scenarios lie, say, a castle gate?

I guess I just always made assumptions that all this stuff was fantasy make-believe stuff and accepted it as fun game mechanics. Do you have a link to any books or reference material on the basic physics of magic spells? I'd really like to read up on that to see how real life spells differ in properties and behavior from the made up ones in games.

An excellent example of well crafted, humorous and misapplied sarcasm - and the kind of niggling counterpoint which achieves less than the sum of its parts...

Perhaps you were just being contrary like so many posters - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just this once and rephrase.

To reiterate in simpler terms for you then...

Magic produces fire, or lightning, or necrosis, or boils, or disease, or poison, or freezing cold - or whatever etc. etc.

None of these singular effects are enough to outright kill a squishy, flesh and bone person wearing at best a few millimeters of metal in whichever game's idea of damage, cause and effect.

As people made of flesh and bone get badly damaged or destroyed by relatively tiny fractions of the amount of the kinds of force (kinetic, thermal, electrical etc.) necessary to even dent or singe etc. a gate, wall or what have you, the way in which the forces are summoned is as irrelevant as any further reasoned argument over the matter.

The point is - the other illogical stuff you mention being in the game (selective targetting, burned hands etc.) is useful to the game being playable, and it doesn't require much suspension of disbelief - nor does it engender boring playstyles.

The fact however that a bunch of daggers can defeat a castle wall in minutes rather than years+replacement daggers (think Count of Monte Cristo here...) make suspension of disbelief all the harder, and the crap lowest common denominator of the strategically sterile zerg an innevitability.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

i have to disagree to some degree.

1) the Roman empire won against the barbarians because they were A) way better equipped, B) they had war machines and siege engines, C) were an actual organized and paid army that did nothing else but war, D) they had one of the most cunning and intelligent strategists in history of war making (Ceasar). E) they were backed by a unified and incredibly wealthy, advanced country that spent an incredible ammount of money on it's armies.... as opposed to the gauls that were mostly farmers and hunters and raiders that were at war with eachother more often than not.

When 2 enemies are equally equipeed and equally skilled, zergs are a huge advantage. you will never take zergs out of open world pvp.

3) yes, artillery should be powerfull (MO has doen it best imo), than again you should be albe to dive to the ground to avoid a scorpion's bolt. You should also be able to see a catapul's rock while it's flying towards you, and siege weappons should take time to set up.

4) i've seen plenty of games that provide advantage for being on top of battlements. then again heavy shields should make arrows almost usless. AND arrows should not be infinite...i find endless projectiles incredibly annoying.

5)....you talking about WoW? all serious sieging games have ways of closing the gates (War, DF, MO, etc).

6) tunneling besically requires teraforming of some kind and personaly it pretty much defeats the whole siege thing. also tunneling took months if not years in reall war. most of the times it was faster to starve a city than make a tunnel all the way under the walls.

Report this post

The point is - the other illogical stuff you mention being in the game (selective targetting, burned hands etc.) is useful to the game being playable...

Now you're catching on.

Talking about illogical stuff: I like the idea of artillery hits being close to deadly but if they are deadly, and the game has a corpse-salvage feature, then perhaps the artillery blasts the body into bits and pieces and nothing can be salvaged so there's a not inconsiderable economic danger with these weapons.

Talking about zerg and organisation: The old hammer and anvil should be a maneouvre of an "army" against a zerg that literally does smash it between the "hammer" and the "anvil", like a hot knife through butter!

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Quirhid

I'm just going to grab this little detail...

The barbarians didn't use "zerg tactics" against the Romans. Some had a pretty sophisticated military structure a good understanding of tactics, good generals and high culture. For example the Dacians (was it Dacians? -somewhere around the Northern Balkans) were unrivalled jewelers, only the Roman propaganda smeared them as uncivilized.

There are plenty of instances where the Romans were outsmarted by their neighbours.

Did I say ALL barbarians?

As an ex-archaeologist I could trot out a fair number of barbarian battles - such as any number of Germanic or Celtic battles which qualify.

I am of course talking about what a modern MMO player would look at and think 'barbarian' - there are not that many who would start wondering whether they spoke Greek or undertsood certain forms of 'civilised' literature before classifying them as barbarians or not.

To Romans - Cathaginians were 'barbarians', Persians were 'barbarians' and for the purposes of this thread - your point is pointless.

Most armies got rolled by Romans because of their fighting method, tactics and strategies. At the siege of Alesia Caesar beat a massive horde of Celts that vastly outnumbered his army. At the Battle of Watling Street Boudica's 'zerg' got ground into mincemeat by far lesser numbers of Romans because the Romans chose their ground well and used a saw-tooth formation when the attackers didn't use any formation at all.

They were barbarians, they zerged and they lost.

End of story.

Caesar should've lost that battle. And Vercingetorix was hardly zerging. Being under siege or sieging is not zerging. Do us a favor: Don't use MMO terms for real life events. Or are you one of those lunatics who think there's "tanking" in real life too?

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

meh... DAoC had everything the OP made points about except sappers - and even then, they had classes that could climb walls and ensure the walls were cleared of enemy/pots of boiling oil so people could build/use a ram at the door undisturbed. Guild Wars 2 tries to replicate RvR and I think they come reasonably close, but I'm fairly certain most of us have given up hope on anything like DAoC 2.

Oh... and interjecting the Romans into the conversation was funny. As if what's realistic ever has anything to do with the fun factor in video games.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Quirhid

I'm just going to grab this little detail...

The barbarians didn't use "zerg tactics" against the Romans. Some had a pretty sophisticated military structure a good understanding of tactics, good generals and high culture. For example the Dacians (was it Dacians? -somewhere around the Northern Balkans) were unrivalled jewelers, only the Roman propaganda smeared them as uncivilized.

There are plenty of instances where the Romans were outsmarted by their neighbours.

Did I say ALL barbarians?

As an ex-archaeologist I could trot out a fair number of barbarian battles - such as any number of Germanic or Celtic battles which qualify.

I am of course talking about what a modern MMO player would look at and think 'barbarian' - there are not that many who would start wondering whether they spoke Greek or undertsood certain forms of 'civilised' literature before classifying them as barbarians or not.

To Romans - Cathaginians were 'barbarians', Persians were 'barbarians' and for the purposes of this thread - your point is pointless.

Most armies got rolled by Romans because of their fighting method, tactics and strategies. At the siege of Alesia Caesar beat a massive horde of Celts that vastly outnumbered his army. At the Battle of Watling Street Boudica's 'zerg' got ground into mincemeat by far lesser numbers of Romans because the Romans chose their ground well and used a saw-tooth formation when the attackers didn't use any formation at all.

They were barbarians, they zerged and they lost.

End of story.

Caesar should've lost that battle. And Vercingetorix was hardly zerging. Being under siege or sieging is not zerging. Do us a favor: Don't use MMO terms for real life events. Or are you one of those lunatics who think there's "tanking" in real life too?

No of course he wasn't... he just stayed in his fortification right...?...

... and Caesardidn't have to go into the front lines personally to rally his troops where the circumvalation was close to being breached by overwhelming numbers attacking hmm..?

I suggest you review Wiki again - and if it doesn't mention the massive attack on Caesars position - you had better look somewhere more authoritative.

To drag you back to the point... I merely think PvP should have more reasonable and realistic elements - at least those that eliminate or minimise the obviously impossible, and in addition, those which ADD to the fun and thinking elements of the game. Zergs are after all commonly refered to as 'mindless' for good reason.

That's all I posted about - but it is not what you are engaging on - you are nitpicking without an effective 'nit-picker'...

Your comments - to most posts it would seem (having taken a quick look at your history) is to generally naysay and never say anything really constructive, regardless of the issue at hand.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose...

As for your last comment - tut tut - tangential insults of that kind are both lazy and lacking in any real wit - allow me to demonstrate;

'Or are YOU one of those fools who thinks because he can read Wiki about a battle he can talk with authority about it?'.

See - that took me seconds and I really didn't have to think about it at all!

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by versulas

meh... DAoC had everything the OP made points about except sappers - and even then, they had classes that could climb walls and ensure the walls were cleared of enemy/pots of boiling oil so people could build/use a ram at the door undisturbed. Guild Wars 2 tries to replicate RvR and I think they come reasonably close, but I'm fairly certain most of us have given up hope on anything like DAoC 2.

Oh... and interjecting the Romans into the conversation was funny. As if what's realistic ever has anything to do with the fun factor in video games.

It does in Total War.

I don't think it is beyond the wit of humanity to combine the two to some degree - we shall see eventually I am sure.

I wish I had been playing such games when DAoC was popular - I can't recall anyone saying it wasn't anything but pure quality in the PvP department.

Report this post

I have for a long time been irritated by a number of commonly accepted norms in sieging which actively create zergs and deter from tactical and strategic play.

1. The Destructibility of Objects

Here's a challenge - take a REAL great axe, give it to the powerlifting world champion and then get him to attack a barbican castle gate with it. You know what happens?

The axe blunts and or breaks and he acheives precisely nothing.

The idea that weapons (arrows, axes, swords etc.) or flash in the pan spells - withering necromantic attacks, splashes of flame or lighting strokes can seriously do any real damage to a proper fortress gate, never mind the walls - is crap.

The fact is - only tremendous and repeated impact or the kind of explosions which produce a shattering shockwave even touch fortifications.

Sieges would be so much better if you HAD to build siege weapons, or struggle up ladders or siege towers to beat enemy fortifications. Not just zerg the entrance for 5 minutes watching a health bar creep down from fifty people on auto-attack.

2. I Am Legion - the Zerg At Work

The reason the Roman Empire kicked the hell out of many times their numbers of barbarians in most battles was because the barbarians used zerg tactics.

Zerg tactics in the real world get you dead against organised opposition.

In the original dev chats about Age of Conan they talked about a system where formations of NPC troops could be assembled and 'soft capture' boxes placed within them where PC's could stand - where unless they made an active movement, they would then automatically follow the troop formations moves - which a PC commander controlled of course.

They dropped the idea and gave in to the ease of zerg mechanics.

Such a shame considering thay MMO has great combat and full impact...

This should be looked at again by someone - adventurous dungeon skirmishing etc is fine for what it is - but the battlefield should be the province of armies aka Total War - not the hordes of 'chaos'.

I zccept however that having larger armies and plots of PC's on screen is a technology problem at the moment - but the time will come...

3. Artillery

Artillery is usually far too weak. Anyone getting hit by a balista bolt should die. Anyone getting crushed by a catapult or trebuchet shot should die. heavy damage, aoe knockdown and stun should hit those around exploding shot.

Artillery should be difficult to aim with a ranked skill for artillerists to increase accuracy based on training and practice.

Fire rate should be reasonably slow, but no targetting reticle or other warning should be given to targets.

You ran in front of the loaded and primed scorpion or didn't look up when it started raining capault shot - tough!

4. Battlements

Battlements should give proper cover, increase the range of attacks fired from them and not block LOS of defenders.

Pretty basic stuff - but the number of games where hardly anyone goes on the walls and just wait for a breach to occur to face the zerg is shocking.

5. Open Gates

How many times have you had to defend a fortification whose NPC don't shut the gate, and there is no facility to shut it yourself?

Ridiculous isn't it...

If there is a 'defend x' quest at the location then the location should defend itself - not stand there with the gates open like clothes dummies with a deathwish.

6. Summon the Sappers!

Tunneling and counter tunneling. Sapper teams should be a resources - like siege weapons available to both sides. have a 10 min timer-limited sapper team build a tunnel under wall - then have it available as an access point which one person can go through at once into the fortification, or you can set a fire in it to damage or bring down the wall above.

With a slight visual indication of the proceeding tunnel on the far side of the wall - counter tunnels can be dug by defenders sapper teams to allow a tunnel fight for ownership - the defenders (if they take it) able to collapse it and end the threat.

Put these elements in then you have to fight smart, and zerging will be less than productive.

Nice read , you do know that Devs are on a tight schedule. So they have 2 choices , either focus properly on PvP or storyline. They go hybrid , we end up with current titles being released. Problem with this is that they focus a whole lot on graphics and making the water be able to reflect your image , all that time wasted on pointless graphics could of gone on amazing gameplay. Oh well , you'll have to wait 6-7 more years before seeing such MMOs being released with proper sieges. ArcheAge will deliver somewhat , if they push the release date by the end of 2013 start of 2014 , then ArcheAge will most likely be titled most awesome MMO in the past 20 years.

Report this post

Put these elements in then you have to fight smart, and zerging will be less than productive.

Nice read , you do know that Devs are on a tight schedule. So they have 2 choices , either focus properly on PvP or storyline. They go hybrid , we end up with current titles being released. Problem with this is that they focus a whole lot on graphics and making the water be able to reflect your image , all that time wasted on pointless graphics could of gone on amazing gameplay. Oh well , you'll have to wait 6-7 more years before seeing such MMOs being released with proper sieges. ArcheAge will deliver somewhat , if they push the release date by the end of 2013 start of 2014 , then ArcheAge will most likely be titled most awesome MMO in the past 20 years.

I think the technology is almost there.

What the genre needs in my opinion is the large all-encompassing hybrid with intelligent design throughout so it meshes well.

The risks in this approach are as you point at, the development investment needed. One can shorten time with more devs, integration engineers and testers. But the lage number of subsystem teams would have to be very well managed and have a clear strategic vision of where the project was headed and in principle a map of how to get there.

It would be a major undertaking - but would, if done right, command a monthly sub and be sure in the medium term onwards to make a bucket load of profit.

WoW proved that there are a vast number of players willing to jump into one game and stay there, subbing for years - they just have to be inspired to do it again!

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Interesting points. I am curious how you feel about re-spawning.

- Al

Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR

Report this post

Respawning is basically a cardinal point in computer games that cannot really be tackled - it's fundamental to the fun of the game.

As I said - I am not some fundamental 'simulationist' - I just find the more ridiculous elements as I have discussed to be immersion breaking and lazy damn implementation which could be done far better.

I Shakespeare stage play can drawn you in if well acted with decent sets. But the moment Hamlet uses his mobile to call Ophelia, the immersion is ruined.

Report this post

No of course he wasn't... he just stayed in his fortification right...?...

... and Caesardidn't have to go into the front lines personally to rally his troops where the circumvalation was close to being breached by overwhelming numbers attacking hmm..?

I suggest you review Wiki again - and if it doesn't mention the massive attack on Caesars position - you had better look somewhere more authoritative.

To drag you back to the point... I merely think PvP should have more reasonable and realistic elements - at least those that eliminate or minimise the obviously impossible, and in addition, those which ADD to the fun and thinking elements of the game. Zergs are after all commonly refered to as 'mindless' for good reason.

That's all I posted about - but it is not what you are engaging on - you are nitpicking without an effective 'nit-picker'...

Your comments - to most posts it would seem (having taken a quick look at your history) is to generally naysay and never say anything really constructive, regardless of the issue at hand.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose...

As for your last comment - tut tut - tangential insults of that kind are both lazy and lacking in any real wit - allow me to demonstrate;

'Or are YOU one of those fools who thinks because he can read Wiki about a battle he can talk with authority about it?'.

See - that took me seconds and I really didn't have to think about it at all!

I only needed to look the wiki to check how to correctly spell Vercingetorix. Some of us still read books. But nice try, bud.

As for the topic, it is useless to try and approach a realistic simulation of a large battle of any kind.

Sieges took a lot of time: Players don't have that much time or lose interest

A lot of people were involved: Forgetting for a moment the all too obvious technical limitations, you cannot expect players to muster up any sizable force resembling an army. A raiding party yes, but not an army. Not without NPCs.

Attrition, fatigue, wear and tear have not been implemented in a fun way so far. They are a huge annoyance - especially if applied to players (to a lesser degree when NPCs are involved)

No I only see a real siege possible if the players would NOT play the part of a common foot soldier but a captain of a company of NPCs. But calculating the actions and positions of those NPCs would still be a significant technical hurdle. And even then a semi turn-based structure for the siege would be in order to avoid any kind of "timezone metagaming". Furthermore, the larger the battle grows the bigger nightmare it is to balance - unless big battles is the only thing you do in that game.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky

Report this post

No of course he wasn't... he just stayed in his fortification right...?...

... and Caesardidn't have to go into the front lines personally to rally his troops where the circumvalation was close to being breached by overwhelming numbers attacking hmm..?

I suggest you review Wiki again - and if it doesn't mention the massive attack on Caesars position - you had better look somewhere more authoritative.

To drag you back to the point... I merely think PvP should have more reasonable and realistic elements - at least those that eliminate or minimise the obviously impossible, and in addition, those which ADD to the fun and thinking elements of the game. Zergs are after all commonly refered to as 'mindless' for good reason.

That's all I posted about - but it is not what you are engaging on - you are nitpicking without an effective 'nit-picker'...

Your comments - to most posts it would seem (having taken a quick look at your history) is to generally naysay and never say anything really constructive, regardless of the issue at hand.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose...

As for your last comment - tut tut - tangential insults of that kind are both lazy and lacking in any real wit - allow me to demonstrate;

'Or are YOU one of those fools who thinks because he can read Wiki about a battle he can talk with authority about it?'.

See - that took me seconds and I really didn't have to think about it at all!

I only needed to look the wiki to check how to correctly spell Vercingetorix. Some of us still read books. But nice try, bud.

As for the topic, it is useless to try and approach a realistic simulation of a large battle of any kind.

Sieges took a lot of time: Players don't have that much time or lose interest

A lot of people were involved: Forgetting for a moment the all too obvious technical limitations, you cannot expect players to muster up any sizable force resembling an army. A raiding party yes, but not an army. Not without NPCs.

Attrition, fatigue, wear and tear have not been implemented in a fun way so far. They are a huge annoyance - especially if applied to players (to a lesser degree when NPCs are involved)

No I only see a real siege possible if the players would NOT play the part of a common foot soldier but a captain of a company of NPCs. But calculating the actions and positions of those NPCs would still be a significant technical hurdle. And even then a semi turn-based structure for the siege would be in order to avoid any kind of "timezone metagaming". Furthermore, the larger the battle grows the bigger nightmare it is to balance - unless big battles is the only thing you do in that game.

You know - all habitual critics like to morph the matter at hand into something more resembling what they can easily criticise - especially when the original point isn't 'good enough' to them to get their teeth into.

I have already stated I am not a simulationist - and wouldn't seek that either - merely wishing to remove those things which I beleive destroy any sense of immersion and adding those things which would make it more fun.

You talking about simulationism thus belies your purpose. It should be perfectly obvious upon first reading I am not suggesting in the slightest that the 'sitting round and waiting for the defenders to starve' part of seiging isn't something I am suggesting. I am talking about assaulting of course... attrition, fatigue, wear and tear - where did I bring this up, or even talk about something these are relevant to?

So why bring them up? <---- (rhetorical question)

This is the last I will say on the subject as far as you are concerned - you really wish to naysay about something you are making up as you go and subsequently over-emphasise by tying in one or two minor tangential issues. So I'll be disregarding it from now on.

I am not interested in pointless negativity, and it is clear you won't really want to engage with the issue constructively you just want to keep throwing in crap and then complaining it smells of s**t.

If you really want to talk about whatever it is you are trying to say (if it is in fact anything with any relevant substance), then start your own thread - do stop camping this one.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by zymurgeistWooden gates are not impervious to axes. The problem was standing there chopping away at a gate in clear view of the enemy was often fatal. If you wanted to be realistic about sieges until the advent of guns your options were treachery, intimidation or waiting out starvation and disease. None of which is particularly fun in a game. Cities were almost never taken by siege warfare. "Realism" arguments are weak at best. It's better start from the goal of making it fun. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of ways to make losing a city in which a great amount of time has been invested fun. If the outcome is essentially meaningless that's not much fun either.

Wrong I'm afraid.

The iron or bronze reinforcement of a sturdy gate would defeat an axe wielder entirely. There is not ONE case in history, ever, where a gate was opened with hand held weapons. Not one.

If that had been the case at some point in history - people would have stopped building gates out of wood...

Iron and bronze were so valuable they were almost never used as a complete skin except for church doors. Reinforcements were usually limited to bolts and other hardware. Vikings frquently broke into English Abbeys and country estates with axes. Barbarians did the same to some Roman forts. The first full blown castles in England weren't until William The Bastard arrived. Sieging of something the size of the City of Paris isn't practical in a game. So sieging a keep or outlying fortification, and the methods of doing so, are valid.

Sieging in games is not going to be realistic. But let it be fun and somewhat believable. I've never seen anyone do scaling ladders properly and I would like to have an escalade.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Quirhid

No I only see a real siege possible if the players would NOT play the part of a common foot soldier but a captain of a company of NPCs. But calculating the actions and positions of those NPCs would still be a significant technical hurdle. And even then a semi turn-based structure for the siege would be in order to avoid any kind of "timezone metagaming". Furthermore, the larger the battle grows the bigger nightmare it is to balance - unless big battles is the only thing you do in that game.

...

You should re-read this bit.

I would have more, but since you're so thin-skinned, I'll not add more.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky